Lakin Goes To Prison - And Here Comes The Next Eligibility Lawsuit

Here's The Right Side Of It ^ | December 18, 2010 | John L. Work

[JLWORK]

With thanks to WorldNetDaily:

Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin was just convicted, discharged from service and sent to a six-month prison term for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan - until Barack Obama turns over his credentials and proves his Constitutional Eligibility to hold office. You thought it was all over, finally? Nope.

Here comes another presidential eligibility lawsuit – scheduled for a January 7, 2011 conference in the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit was brought originally by Captain Connie Rhodes, U.S. Army, et al and her attorney, Orly Taitz. Here’s the link to the PDF Petition for Writ of Certiorari that Taitz filed, requesting that the lower Court, which dismissed the original case and fined Taitz $20,000.00 for continuing to file motions on behalf of her clients, be ordered by the Supreme Court to review its decision.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10-21-10-Taitz-USSC-Pet-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf

Much of the petition centers around two issues:

1) The Courtroom conduct and judicial rulings of the Georgia Middle District Court Justice, Clay D. Land, in which he refused to hear the eligibility case on its merits, then ridiculed and fined Taitz $20,000.00 for continuing to press the legal arguments at hand. Taitz claims that Land provided no explanation as to why she was not allowed to present oral arguments and why her written arguments were “unconvincing”. He summarily dismissed the case without a review of the evidence.

2) Taitz’s investigation into the origins of Barack Obama’s Social Security Number, which was originally issued in the State of Connecticut to a man who was born in the late 1890s, includes an affidavit of the facts prepared by former Scotland Yard officer Neil Sankey. There is no record of Obama ever having lived in Connecticut. The original holder of the number is presumed dead. Land dismissed Taitz’s investigation as frivolous and refused to hear the evidence.

Taitz is asking for her $20,000.00 back, based upon Constitutional grounds that the fine was levied in retaliation against her and her client. The possibility also exists that the fine was actually imposed to intimidate other potential plaintiffs who might be considering similar actions. Land made direct allusions to the political agenda of the “birthers” in his dismissal, without looking at any of Taitz’s evidence.

Last week the Army convicted Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin in a General Court Martial, without hearing any evidence on his behalf and without allowing him to produce witnesses in his own defense. Lakin is on his way to prison – or he is already there. One of Taitz’s clients, U.S. Army Reserve Major Stephen Cook, was fired from his contractor’s job in retaliation for his participation in Captain Rhodes’ original eligibility lawsuit.

The bodies are beginning to stack up all over the country, figuratively speaking. And Barack Hussein Obama continues to refuse to turn his cards over – Occidental College transcripts, Columbia University transcripts, Columbia senior thesis, Harvard University transcripts, financial aid applications, passport records, college application records, public school records, long form birth certificate, Harvard Law Review records, law client lists, Illinois State Legislature records and calendar, and medical records. The computerized on-line image that he’s presented as a valid Hawaiian birth certificate would not get your child into Little League Baseball. So, what’s in all of those documents that he doesn’t want us to see?

Taitz must now present her arguments to the Supreme Court – if she’s allowed to do so. They’ve to this point refused to hear any of these types of cases. Personally, since Congress and the American Press Corps abjectly refused to do their investigative jobs back in 2008, I’d just like hear the evidence argued in an open Court of Law.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.

[JLWORK]

“The sanctions order specifies exactly what she was sanctioned for: accusing the judge of “treason” (that’s called “contempt of court,” for those of you following along at home), and accusing the judge of meeting with Attorney General Holder in a coffee shop across the street from the courthouse in Georgia (on a day when Holder was appearing publicly in Los Angeles).”

Got a link to the sanctions order?

Best,

John

[JLWORK]

Disregard the prior request for a link to the sanction order. I found it. Thanks.

JW

[JLWORK]

Here’s the link to Land’s sanction order against Taitz.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/PDF/PDF%20Archive/Order_denying_motion_for_recusal.pdf

You can read it for yourselves and see if you detect any hostility against or derision toward Taitz from the Court.

I agree with Lurking Libertarian - probably no grant of certiorari in this case. Would like to see the transcript of her alleged accusation of treason against the Court. Yes - that would indeed be contemptuous of her.

Thanks, Lurking Libertarian, for your comments.

JW

[deport]

Would like to see the transcript of her alleged accusation of treason against the Court. Yes - that would indeed be contemptuous of her.

---

Check page 5 of the following and see what you think. I don’t know if this is what the judge is referring to or not.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19939482/Motion-of-Consideration-by-Orly-Taitz-91709

[JLWORK]

I don’t know, either, but I’ll bet the Court was not particularly pleased to read this page of the filing. From the Judge’s ruling, I thought she made the accusation while addressing the Court - but you could have it right here.

Thanks for the research. Think she’ll get her money back?

John

[JLWORK]

I don’t know, either, but I’ll bet the Court was not particularly pleased to read this page of the filing. From the Judge’s ruling, I thought she made the accusation while addressing the Court - but you could have it right here.

Thanks for the research. Think she’ll get her money back?

John

[Walts Ice Pick]

Good points.

I have some questions about this SS number mystery:

As regards the SS number that was issued to Obama and which is alleged to have been previously been issued to some other fellow, how old was Obama when he was issued this SS number? Is it felt by those investigating this mystery that when Obama was issued this number, he had, because of his position or station in life, the power to control what number he was issued by the SS Administration? Is there some sensible theory as to why Obama (or anyone else) would have wanted Obama to be issued the same SS number that had been previously issued to someone in a different state? What is this SS number and to whom (name) was it previously issued?

IOW, does any of this make any sense to anyone who possesses any common sense? Finally, is it possible that an investigator found a document that by simple human error erroneously associates Obama with the SS number for somebody else?

[danamco]

Truther???????

[Tex-Con-Man]

Pastor Manning: Birthers & 9/11 Truthers Unite

[danamco]

Right there you are posting TWO lies, and that’s because you sure are a true CON-MAN!!!

[danamco]

Seems you are right. words speaks for itself, but does that give the government the right to arrest a man on "trumped up charges?

The words he is speaking before the arrest indicates clearly that he is right that our government is totally corrupt and here comes Julian Assange to mind??

You may have forgotten that we had "flight students" here in Florida that the government knew about. And also Jamie Gorelich, Holder(?) erected a wall between FBI/CIA to protect Clinton. Remember Berger was sent out to white-wash Clinton's archives before the 9/11 commission hearing???

Sure in your eyes NO corruption here, "let us just move on" to keep your dear Fuehrer in office at any cost, and to heck with the CONSTITUTION, and the civil rights, hmmmm!!!

[El Sordo]

Buzzkill.

[El Sordo]

“Finally, is it possible that an investigator found a document that by simple human error erroneously associates Obama with the SS number for somebody else?”

Be careful asking those kinds of questions on eligibility threads. You're liable to get yourself labeled as an Obot.